I don’t know if I’ll be able to keep this up too much longer, and there is this lag between when I am able to respond and a whole new batch of posts. In any case, let it be known that I was simply trying to follow the rules, according to which I could not introduce myself properly until I had 3 posts to my name. If that was not correct, let me know. In addition, I did not do so without “getting to know who [you] are”. I read through some of the very poor scholarship regarding why I should believe God is imaginary and then read through some of the forum posts before I responded to this one. Of course, I know none of you personally. If you would like to do that, I would be happy to share emails and fun things we do in our personal time besides doing this.

Jetson, I am not aware of any “pretty amazingly ignorant claims” that I’ve made. Care to enlighten me? You’ve asked me “how all the animals got here and how old the earth is”. Tell you what; so that we can appropriately compare apples to apples and be sure my answer accurately represents what you are asking, why don’t you go first with your version? I will then respond with my answer.

Belial,I think I answered the couple of inquiries regarding creation scientists who laid the foundations of much of the science we enjoy today with my last post by listing the creation scientists. If these things had been taught in school, perhaps you would have already known them. For example, Carolus Linneaus laid the foundations for modern taxonomy. Why? Because he was attempting to determine the original KINDS of life that God had created. It is preposterous to claim that creation science is attempting to “invalidate” or “attack” the science we enjoy today. This is the very point of my post. Operational science is operational science. It is done by people who believe in evolution and those who believe in creation. It is the philosophical or metaphysical INTEPRETATION of the evidence where the disagreement lies, NOT in the science itself. There is nothing in biology that couldn’t be done while accepting creation theory and rejecting evolution. In fact, evolution has been detrimental to science. For example, we may have had many medical breakthroughs that have been overlooked because evolutionists considered organs to be “vestigial” or DNA to be “junk” for which we have now found play critical functions.

By the way, I accept your explanation for why people participate in this forum. For me personally, however, I enjoy defending the truth against opposing arguments a little more than celebrating with people who agree with me. It sharpens my understanding by hearing both sides of the argument. No offense, but I’ve yet to see an atheist that even knows what scientific creation theory is. Yet, they’ll continually mock something they know nothing about while claiming creationists do not know what evolution is even though we’ve all been indoctrinated with it in school. To some degree I don’t blame them. If it wasn’t for the bigotry of atheists who do not allow alternative scientific theories to be taught in our schools, many more people would understand both sides of the story.

Nogodsforme,You cannot seriously consider forensic science comparable to evolutionary speculation! We have repeatedly observed and tested hundreds of thousands of murders and know exactly what to expect of the evidence. We can test blood patterns from bullet penetrations in the lab and compare those results with evidence at the murder scene. There is a myriad of comparable types of evidence that can be repeatedly tested in the lab to determine its trustworthiness and expected results. In addition, it is used to analyze evidence that has recently occurred making it much easier to diagnose. On the other hand, evolution deals with speculations about events that supposedly happened billions of years ago. We have little clue to what the conditions were back then or if processes we observe today were even in operation (one of the assumptions made by evolutionists).

Evolution attempts to understand ONE-TIME events in the distant past which have NEVER been observed while forensics is determining what occurred in the recent past based on well known repeatable events that have been observed thousands of times. The big bang cannot be repeated to tell what kind of results we can expect from one. Life arising from non-life has never been observed and has never been repeated even in the lab. It is only assumed to have happened naturally because the alternative explanation is unacceptable to the atheists who have proposed evolutionary theories. In forensics, DNA analysis is used to specifically identify a unique pattern associated with an individual. This is a far cry from assuming we evolved from a common ancestor with apes because our DNA is similar! It is only speculation based on circular reasoning that we can reach this conclusion, not observed science!

Lastly, you cannot disagree that many individuals have been falsely convicted based on forensic evidence. Therefore, even with events that have occurred in the recent past based on repeated testing of the evidence, mistakes can still be made based on incorrect assumptions. How much more so for evolution!

I’ve just read this last group of posts and I am in absolute awe. Nice job. Apparently you guys can dish it out but not take it. You are simply affirming the claims I have made about atheists. Let’s start with you Jetson. Here is the list of baseless claims you have made about me without a stitch of supporting evidence:

I have “absolutely no idea of what [I’m] talking about” - Oh, because my opinion differs from yours?

My “ignorance of science, and the scientific method is clear” – Please provide evidence where I have stated anything about science that is not consistent with the mainstream understanding of science by scientists.

I am “willfully dishonest in engaging in a topic that I clearly have no understanding of” – Please demonstrate where I have made any dishonest statements.

I am “completely misinformed about the world we live in” – Oh, because my opinion differs from yours?

I am “doing nothing more than parroting the creationist nonsense that has been completely debunked” – What creationists nonsense is that? Please show how it has been “debunked”

I’ve made a “mockery of discussions, just to support [my] personal delusions” – Please show evidence of where I have made a mockery of discussions. This is one of a long list of personal ad hominem attacks you have made contrary to reasonable discourse and logic. I have not attacked anyone personally.

I’ve stomped on “well thought our replies” – Please provide an example of a “well thought out reply” which I have “stomped” on.

I’ve ignored very important questions – My, my, patience does not seem to be a virtue of yours. I’d like to see you get to an “important question” when 10 people are making a mockery of your character.

Raymond is not much better:

Apparently I’m “completely arrogant”, “laughably ignorant” , “deceit[ful]” and have “primitive and ugly beliefs” – Please back up any of these claims. Again, these are ad hominem personal attacks. I have not personally attacked anyone on this forum. This type of response is typical of atheists that have absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. Therefore they resort to senseless name calling. I have generalized about atheists, but no where I have personally insulted, judged or dismissed anyone on this forum. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and I fully respect that.

Apparently it is you that is now throwing around the “persecution” card. If I abandon this site, it certainly will not be because it is “out of my league”. Left to its own devices, I certainly will not always be able to respond in a timely manner because I have a job and other responsibilities to attend to. Since I’ve already been threatened with censorship, I suspect I will be removed from the forum simply for telling the truth which is something apparently you folks can’t swallow. I stated in my first response that I did not expect anyone to agree with me, so why in the world would you think I’d be stomping my feet like an 8-yr old when it doesn’t happen? I’m perfectly confident of my position and have no problems with you guys acting like children, which is what you are doing now with this response and to be honest what I expected. Apparently it is you that must make personal attacks because of the inadequacy of your position.

You continue in complete hypocrisy by accusing me of “rambling” and not discussing anything. Isn’t that what you’ve just spent doing with a huge amount of text? I’ve not seen anyone yet provide substantive evidence for ANY Issues I’ve raised or those raised by the initial poster except to say that I’m an idiot. And yet I’m the one that needs to put on their “big boy pants”? I beg to differ. If you have become disinterested in engaging in a discussion with me, that’s perfectly fine. I certainly don’t need lengthy posts dedicated exclusively to calling me names. Something I’ve not done in any of my posts.

Lastly, I’m not dodging any issues. I think I have provided substantive reasoning for my initial topic of how historical science and operational science are different. These are not terms that were made up by creationists. I’ll provide a reference for the origin of these methods in my next post. In addition, if I can muster enough self control, I will ignore further childish name calling and personal attacks and address the issue of the age of the earth in my next post. That is, assuming I am not kicked out of the forum after this post by those who cannot tolerate ideas different than their own.

My “ignorance of science, and the scientific method is clear” – Please provide evidence where I have stated anything about science that is not consistent with the mainstream understanding of science by scientists.

You stated that "hundreds of dating methods" show the world to be a few thousand years old.

Multiple people have asked you repeatedly to cite your sources for this jaw-droppingly stupid (yes, it's stupid, I'm sorry) claim.

You are wrong. This ridiculous load of s**t is NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE MAINSTREAM UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE BY SCIENTISTS.

The mainstream science by scientists LAUGHS at people who believe this stuff.

I do not know who tells you these things, but they are wrong too.

I will straight up convert to Christianity RIGHT NOW if you can point out just TEN "dating methods" that show the world to be a few thousand years old. Let alone "hundreds". Or find me just 10% of the scientific community, or even 5% of the secular scientific community, that endorses this dumbassery.

I'm making this very easy on you. I'm focusing on one single solitary claim that you have made, but not followed up on despite multiple people asking you to.

Focus. Grow some balls. Take a deep breath and ignore the big mean atheist who keeps calling you a screaming douchebag so that you may emerge victorious after schooling him on your TRUFINESS.

Now. Ready? Here we go.

SITE YOUR SOURCES for this scientific consensus. Why do you not do this very simple task? Why can't you simply back up the fantastic claims you make? You made the claim. And now you are doing absolutely everything to avoid backing it up when asked, like a grown up. Instead, you pout. You whine. You play the persecution card. You babble about more boring stuff that has nothing to do with anything interesting.

Surely these "dating methods" are peer reviewed and widely available on the internet; yet I can't find them. Outside of loopy pseudo-science on theological apologia websites.

Help me. Can you do this? Or can you not? If not, I have to say that lying for Jesus makes you a very bad Christian indeed. If you do not answer this question, I will report your ass with a quickness... Which would be the first time I've reported anybody in like 2 years.

All anybody is asking you to do here, is back up the s**t you claim. Site your sources so that we may analyze them and confirm, "Yes, that is a qualified source."

And all we get in return is blabbering, "i'm so oppressed", dodgy dumbness that is wasting everybody's time.

This is sooooo typical of Christians that come here making these claims. Talking to you is like trying to nail jello to the ceiling.

So I call troll. If you're such a spineless little wimp that all you can do is cry about how fill-in-the-blank we are, you're completely useless here. I'm done with you.

It is only assumed to have happened naturally because the alternative explanation is unacceptable to the atheists who have proposed evolutionary theories.

Um, you do you that atheism has nothing to do with evolution, right? I mean, if evolution leads on to disbelief in god, then so be it, but the theories that evolutionary biologists propose is only based on their scientific findings and in no way are they intending to propose a theory to discredit the idea of a god creating everything. It's just the very idea of a god cannot and will not be compatible in a scientific lab, based on the very idea and definition of what a god is. I mean, hey, if someone can produce a believable alternative to the ToE that means that life didn't evolve through natural means, they so be it, but so far all theories fall flat on their faces the minute they inject a god being the underlying agent.

I mean, it's pretty stupid to even claim that evolution is a theory created by atheists because the alternative explanation (which I am assuming is a god behind it. It doesn't matter what god, any god will do) is unacceptable. The alternative explanation is just no believable. I mean, pfffffffffff, some metaphysical being that exists outside of our realm is the alternative. Really, it seems more like fantasy, even if the current theory of evolution and the current theory of abiogenesis and the current theory of big bang cosmology is completely wrong. At least there are thousands and thousands of geeks in lab coats trying to propose a natural, testable explanation to our existence, where the "alternative explanation" is completely out of the question of being tested upon.

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

You are simply not up for this. You came here and started this, and you have not provided a single piece of evidence that anything you say is accurate. You're just spouting personal beliefs, based on apologetics.

And instead of giving me an answer that I can verify for myself, you challenge me to go first? Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way. You don't know what you're talking about, and unless you are prepared to prove your position with something that is verifiable, that does not include reading scripture, you're in way over your head.

But hey, you can keep avoiding the questions and pretend like you've got something on us poor heathens, I suppose. What are you afraid of? How old is the earth, and how do you know your answer is accurate. Answer the question, using some verifiable evidence, or stop making the assertion that science is wrong.

Geez...sometimes I get grouchy when people are so obtuse and arrogant, especially when they are new to the forum.

Here is a link to a site which refutes some of the “amazing ignorance of the most basic Christian theology” found on GII (either that or GII’s author is a “POE”, wouldn’t that be funny). I could add much more to the argument on prayer I referenced earlier which deceitfully excludes fundamental verses on how and why God answer’s prayer, but for brevity, this should suffice for now in refuting the fundamental logic. http://gii.josiahconcept.org/proof-1

Let me first respond to Astreja – Since you are not accepting my apology (which I only conditionally provided in this last post), you apparently were offended. Please do not take my comments personally. I do not know you. You may be a wonderfully kind, truth seeking atheist completely outside the norm, but based on your comments, you are at least uniformed about science.

I fully intend to take your comments personally, as they seem to be intended as insults towards those who do not believe as you do. (Oh, and I think you were trying to say 'uninformed', although I have worn a lab coat on occasion.)

Quote

Finally, the fact that your brother is a biologist has no bearing on the discussion. The vast majority of biologists have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

My brother is a cancer researcher, a molecular biologist and a geneticist. He works directly with evolving life forms, as they are integral to his work in immunology.

Quote

You cannot “know” that evolution is “real” because it has NEVER been observed.

Absolutely false. I have seen it Myself, and so has My brother, and so have literally thousands of scientists worldwide.

I will accept your claim that the earth is only thousands of years old when you provide your sources, scientific studies, peer reviewed data... hell, any evidence you've got. Everything else is just blablablablabala .... scientific evidence trumps all. You claim to have an abundance of evidence, so stop wasting both your time and ours and produce the evidence already.

... and for the record ... I bet 1 million quatloos you are going to produce precisely ZERO evidence and just abandon this site. If that happens, and I know it will, then I will take it as a concession on your part that we are correct and you are just full of shit.

You are seriously deluded. I started to quote some of your drivel but quickly realised I'd need to quote the whole lot, as each and every point adds a bit more to the negative depth of your mental state.

I'll bet you think a lot of people you know think you're intelligent. Why? Because you're a salesman at heart. You say things like they are "true", regardless of any "facts". I'll also bet you think you come across as the most intelligent in your social group. You know why, don't you? Because anyone with half a brain can see you've got a problem and the more intelligent keep right away from you. You're obviously used to being listened to, so it stands to reason that you're surrounded by intellectual dimwits in your life, once again, the only people who haven't the brains to keep away.

You seem the type who is always listened to at home. But not where it counts. Overlooked at work? Kick the dog and slap the missus? Its fairly obvious you are a condescending, rude pig.

So keep it coming. Don't run away just yet!

In the mean time, I'd love to read that introduction you referred to after 3 posts....

BUT REMEMBER, if or when you run away from here, you need to consider that YOU WERE WRONG. I know you won't, but for the sake of your mental health, and those suffering around you, you should start to recognise "maybe it IS me".

Hey, that's my take based on your posts so far. Hope I'm wrong and you expose yourself as an openminded, generous, courteous member of society.

.....atheists (are) willfully ignorant of God’s existence. Since the evidence for God’s existence is abundant and easily apparent, all atheists know He exists deep down.

Cool. Looking forward to that one piece of easily apparent evidence that your god exists - as opposed to, say, the Great Green Arkleseizure. No doubt you will provide it shortly after the "hundred other dating methods".

I’ve not seen anyone yet provide substantive evidence for ANY Issues I’ve raised or those raised by the initial poster...

The expression "pot meet kettle" springs to mind. You appeared, and referenced a hundred dating methods that confirm your point of view. And yet, you seem curiously reluctant to reference any of them.

Now I'm quite willing to accept that when you said "hundreds", you meant "a lot". That's fine, its hyperbole, we can all use it from time to time. But I think in that case you may need to confirm that when you said "hundreds" you really meant......how many? 2? 5? 17? Let's hear what they are.

Evolution attempts to understand ONE-TIME events in the distant past which have NEVER been observed while forensics is determining what occurred in the recent past based on well known repeatable events that have been observed thousands of times......

Hmmm....

Yahweh's creation of the world, Jesus raising people from the dead, parting of the red sea....would these (and others like them) not also count as "ONE-TIME events in the distant past which have NEVER been observed" and should therefore be subject to the same scrutiny and caveats that you would apply to evolution and dating of the Earth?

It starts with the ridiculously false claim that Perry (and Republicans in general) are somehow “anti-science”. If anything, they are supporting true science by encouraging consideration of dissent and alternative theories in the scientific community which is something bigoted atheist evolutionists do not want to allow in their own religious establishments or in our educational institutions.

Oh, there's the kitchen sink. I thought you would forget to throw it in, too.

"bigoted atheist evolutionists" is a disparaging way to refer to others, is it not? I don't think that claiming that somebody else is "anti-science" is disparagement when that person, indeed, after having received an education at a public university that is ...

... still says things like the earth is only 6,000 years old. It is disparaging to the university that produced a graduate who not only failed to learn certain basic things that they teach, but in the 39 years since completing his work there still ignores that his alma mater taught the same scientific findings in 1972 as it teaches in 2011 (with just more precision), which clearly does not include that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I doubt that professors at TAMU had an epiphany in 1980 or 1990 or 2000 for which Rick Perry is not aware. In fact, as a public university using public money from the State of Texas, Rick Perry, as chief executive, should seek to completely remove all funding from the institution that is teaching false things to students.

Yet ... he doesn't do that. I wonder why? Could it be that Rick Perry knows that the earth is far, far older than 6,000 years and he just wishes to prime the pump of politics by catering to the know-nothings that vote for him? I do think so. I think Rick Perry is a master opportunist who uses religion as a cudgel to keep the followers in line. He wants to have a Christ-like aura surrounding him at all times, so he must use the bible as his guide. If it says the earth is 6,000 years old, so be it. If it says to take an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, then execute away.

However, make sure to inject all the young women in Texas with HPV vaccine so that they won't get a certain type of cancer in the future. Science is convenient for Mr Perry at times, eh?

He also paints a very inaccurate picture of the number of global warming “skeptics”. In fact, the number of scientists represented in a UN report refuting global warming is a dozen times larger than the number that authored the original paper that started the controversy.

Since you have this information, please provide an exhaustive list of those who support "climate change" and those who refute it.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

I have to say, I'm not particularly impressed by this guy's theology. Or his attempts to claim the mantle of science (excepting the science he disagrees with, of course) without actually giving any basis for claiming it.

Two things he needs to know:

Unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, claims that you have the 'truth' and that others don't are ridiculous.

Science is not something that you can avow or disavow merely by saying that it's "good science" or "bad science". You have to prove it either way, and you have to prove it in such a way that is convincing to others. Pretending that you can get around that requirement because the people you're talking to "won't listen" or any other such reason is usually a very good sign that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I think I answered the couple of inquiries regarding creation scientists who laid the foundations of much of the science we enjoy today with my last post by listing the creation scientists. If these things had been taught in school, perhaps you would have already known them. For example, Carolus Linneaus laid the foundations for modern taxonomy. Why? Because he was attempting to determine the original KINDS of life that God had created.

Linneaus, Clerck, and other contemporaries were not "creation scientists". They were scientists exploring and categorizing the natural world. They weren't approaching the questions that came later, that resulted from the foundations they laid. Humans are natural classifiers - it is all around us. These scientists were doing this in a formal way as it applied to living organisms. Everyone knew what "plants" were. Everyone knew what "trees" were as separate from other plants. Everyone knew what an "oak tree" was, distinct from "pine trees" and other trees. Many knew the particular type of "oak tree" as different from another type of "oak tree". Linnaeus formalized this classification and described taxa in genera and species, as a way to categorize life around him, and allow them to be identified. Whether he understood evolutionary principles specifically or not is irrelevant, as his work displayed remarkable evolutionary insight. For example, he classified humans in the same way and in the same system as he did with every other animal - classifying them in his Anthropomorpha, which included humans, apes and monkeys. Of course this was widely objected to! In a letter to Gmelin from 1747, Linnaeus replied:

"It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form' but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline."[1]

Quote

evolution deals with speculations about events that supposedly happened billions of years ago. We have little clue to what the conditions were back then or if processes we observe today were even in operation (one of the assumptions made by evolutionists). <snip>Evolution attempts to understand ONE-TIME events in the distant past which have NEVER been observed while forensics is determining what occurred in the recent past based on well known repeatable events that have been observed thousands of times. The big bang cannot be repeated to tell what kind of results we can expect from one. Life arising from non-life has never been observed and has never been repeated even in the lab. It is only assumed to have happened naturally because the alternative explanation is unacceptable to the atheists who have proposed evolutionary theories.

Here you display your ignorance at its finest. Evolution and origins of life are not the same thing, even remotely. If you dig even the smallest bit into this, you would understand it.

Quote

In forensics, DNA analysis is used to specifically identify a unique pattern associated with an individual. This is a far cry from assuming we evolved from a common ancestor with apes because our DNA is similar! It is only speculation based on circular reasoning that we can reach this conclusion, not observed science!

Again, a remarkable display of ignorance! This is non sequitur. DNA analysis for forensic purposes is concerned with only one thing - identification of an individual. Humans share 99.9% of their DNA, but there are some areas (within that 0.1% or less) where there is variation - called variable number tandem repeats, such as short tandem repeats. This has NOTHING whatsover to do with inferring evolutionary relationships among taxa! These gene regions are worthless when looking at deep relationships, because they evolve too fast. Yes, forensics and inferring relationships among taxa use the same ground level methodology - PCR and DNA sequencing - but the two purposes utilize different genes, different analytical methods, and address different questions.

Otoh: Maybe rmu does indeed talk of the "creation scientists" from 50 to 80 years back. If so, i apologize for building a strawman with my line of argument.

Yes, I did in fact suspect raisemeup was referring to all that you spoke of - or something similar, but I addressed what he said, because there is one thing I really need people I speak with to understand: Say what you mean, know what words you use. "Creation Science" refers to the semi-organised movement that originated about fifty years ago. If what he meant to say was "religious scientists" or something of the like, he should have said that instead of bringing up a different group that specifically uses the name "Creation Science". Its a bit nitpicky, but it also sets up for how I will continue the conversation.

The vast majority of biologists have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

This is simply not true. Much of biology relies on evolution to even make sense. Medicine, for example, requires an understanding of evolution in order to determine how to treat bacteria and viruses which have evolved from what they once were.

Even most evolutionary biologists do not concern themselves with the theory of evolution except to tack on just-so stories to actual scientific research that primarily involves creation theory in the first place.

Now this is just plain conspiracy-theory level BS. What is your understanding of what evolutionary biologists do? How does your understanding account for their use of fossils, genetics, and the various methods of dating (chronology, not romance). Where do you get the idea that these are "just-so" stories? Can you give an example of what you are referring to when you say "just-so" stories? Also, which "creation theory" are you speaking of? The Sumerian one? The Greek one? The Ainu? Islamic? How about the Mesoamerican? You will have to forgive me, but you appear to just be throwing random snippets at us in the hopes something will stick; you need to give some examples here.

You cannot “know” that evolution is “real” because it has NEVER been observed. If you have never observed evolution and you believe it is real, then what’s the big deal in believing that God is real?

Ok, there are at least two things outright wrong here. The first is your fact: Evolution has in fact been observed. Second, the premise of your question is incorrect: Observation of the event itself is not required, but the effects it makes can point towards it. The "God" theory fails to make any testable predictions for effects to find, and as we advance in technology and science, there is a trend of not needing to invoke any supernatural beings to explain the previously unknown, but I'll get to this later (if I remember - this is obviously a long post).

Back to the first one - evolution has been observed. We'll start with an example I've already brought up; medicine. More specifically, the bacteria and viruses we use said medicine to treat. Over time, these body-invaders have evolved defenses to the medice we use, and in turn, we have adjusted the medicine to get around those defenses. The HIV/AIDS virus is constantly under the pressure of natural-selection from everything we've been throwing at it. The start of this particular virus was actually a substantially more noticeable change; it switched hosts and functions entirely off a(n un)lucky mutation at the right(wrong) time.

Another example would be insects developing immunities to pesticides after a few years of use - a short-term variant of evolution.

Now, to address the second point a tad more clearly - in regards to evolution specifically. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc. - These are all very testable claims. We go from the theory of evolution, and see what we have, and we can predict what would predate it and how these ancestors are related to one another. This can go backwards and forwards. Backwards in that we can find fossils that link multiple related species. Forwards in that, should a fossil suggest a link that was not previously thought of, we can use genetic testing to see how close or how divergent they really are.

If I look out on the driveway at my car and refuse to believe it exists, I have made an irrational (poor) choice. It requires a purposeful choice on my part not to accept the evidence I see for its existence.

Ok, we can all see where you're going with this idea, we've heard it all before many times. But I'll play along. I agree - if you see a car, know it is called a car, and say "there is no car", we all have the right to look at you funny.

So likewise it is the case with atheists who are willfully ignorant of God’s existence. Since the evidence for God’s existence is abundant and easily apparent, all atheists know He exists deep down. This is evident from the fact that they exhibit moral behavior. In an atheist worldview, there is no absolutely no reason to be moral. According to evolutionary standards, it should be perfectly acceptable to rape your neighbor’s daughter or to commit mass murder if it furthers your ability to procreate and evolve the species. By not doing those things, you have borrowed the morality which comes from God. Therefore, you acknowledge by your behavior that God exists and you have made an irrational choice to ignore it.

And this will make you look like a POE, but I'm working here on the assumption that you're not, so on to the explanation.

First "willfully ignorant" and "all atheists know He exists deep down" is not the best way to get on our good side. We could turn this around and equally say that you really know the Muslims are right and Allah is the one true god "deep down" - doesn't get anyone cookie points and makes the speaker look like a jackass.

Second "abundant evidence" is something you seem to think is apparent, but your only example is that we "act morally", which I'll get to in a second. Abundant evidence would be useful, but you will need examples. I think you'll find that most atheists see everything as an emergent natural process - which is verified by what I mentioned earlier: "The "God" theory fails to make any testable predictions for effects to find, and as we advance in technology and science, there is a trend of not needing to invoke any supernatural beings to explain the previously unknown". In other words; where once we had Zeus throwing lightning bolts, now we have static charge that builds up to critical mass before releasing the energy in the form of lightning. The air that gets heated up so quickly causes a shockwave that we perceive as thunder.

Viola, Zeus is dead, and the gap in our knowledge is filled. After that happens a few hundred, thousand, million times and we uncover more and more of how the world works, there is little reason to suggest that at some unknown point in the future we will need the supernatural or some god to explain away something unknown. Atheists have drawn that line in the sand and our collective understanding of the world has stepped over it. To continue saying there is still something that needs a supernatural process instead of a natural one is to commit to the "god of the gaps" argument.

Third is your "atheist worldview" in which you make a few assumptions that are outright wrong. I seem to say this a lot; but don't tell us what we think. We know what we think. We're the ones who are thinking it. There are, in fact, many reasons to be moral. I should, at this point, stop to make clear that not all atheists agree on all topics. Especially when it comes to morality, but then again, neither do all theists - we all have our interpretation of how to go about morality, and even differing reasons for morality. Some are in it for themselves, some have others they care for, and others still think all life is precious.

Those three apply to both atheists and theists - and there may be other options aside from those three, but I'll use them since they provide a good foundation. Humans have evolved to be (and since you don't like evolved, you can substitute "currently are" if you need to) social creatures. Part of our survival mechanism is social harmony. Morality is derived from this and affects what becomes "moral". Don't kill, don't rape, don't do some other action that would harm the social harmony and cohesion. Raping the neighbor's daughter would harm this social harmony - and if she's too young she wouldn't even produce any offspring; making the whole effort pointless. So why would anyone do it?

Those who are in it for themselves will want to be moral, because a healthier society leads to healthier and happier individuals. If you are part of this society, then you will benefit from it - so why would you harm the society that benefits you? A theist in it for him/herself has the further incentive of heaven, and fear of hell. An atheist, on the other hand, knows that this is the only life s/he gets - so screwing it up by turning society against them or in some way harming the society that supports them will, as a result, harm them. That's a bit of a waste for the only life you get. The same can be applied to others when you are not just in it for yourself. After all, one does not need any supernatural creatures in order to care for others.

Lastly, "By not doing those things, you have borrowed the morality which comes from God. Therefore, you acknowledge by your behavior that God exists and you have made an irrational choice to ignore it." is utter nonsense. The "morality which comes from God" has existed long before any of the Abrahamic faiths, and for the very reasons I mentioned; society colapses, so stop doing that stuff and you can benefit from society! Even if that were not the case, you would have to show it was your god that gave out this morality, as opposed to Mithra, Amaterasu, Allah, or Bob the plumber. Our behavior acknowledges that not being moral is an utterly stupid thing to do, regardless of our goals. So back to my initial point in addressing this paragraph; The only "evidence" you have provided was our morality, which has a much different foundation than you had imagined - one that happens to be slightly more solid, since we don't have to ask if we have the right god's morality.

The single initial presupposition of the Christian worldview is that God is the ultimate source of all truth. Among other things, the atheist worldview presupposes God does not exist and that all things have come about only by materialistic means. Since logic (among many other things) is not materialistic, it has no rational explanation in the atheist worldview but it is easily explained in a Christian worldview since we have been made in God’s likeness.

Once again you're assuming something you cannot know - and are wrong because of it. You will find most atheists did not start with a presupposition that no god existed. Either that particular topic was left to the evidence, and a constant lack of said evidence made the atheist say "I highly doubt a god exists" or, alternatively, they started with the presupposition that god did exist, but became convinced that nothing religion claimed made sense in light of reality and deconverted.

The age of the earth has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. The age of the earth was purposely set to billions of years in order to support evolution. If the earth is 6000 years old (or even “just” millions of years old), then evolution becomes untenable.

This is another bit that makes you sound a bit too much like a conspiracy theorist. The age of the earthWiki calculation uses physics concepts that don't care what biologists think. The early concepts of how old the Earth is failed to compensate for things like radioactive decay or convection, and made implicit assumptions about what the earth was in its initial state. This still granted us a 20 million - 400 million year time frame despite missing many key components that would make all the necessary processes take much longer. What's worse, is you would only be able to get a minimum age - which will not be accurate for an older earth because Earth would have undergone differentiation into the core, mantle, and crust via a long history of plate tectonics, weathering, etc. which was shifting, destroying, and regurgitating pieces of the planet.

The following are some of the more well known creation scientists, many of which believed in a literal 6 day creation. I can provide a link to many more if you are interested

What they believed does not matter as much as the evidence and proofs they provided. None of them provided anything pointing to a god, God, or gods. Therefore... so what? Again, I welcome you to point out anything they may have shown that indicated otherwise.

My claims are supported by evidence and reason already. That is obviously why I accept them. I am not asking you for arguments to challenge my beliefs. My curiosity is whether you have any coherent and logical argument to support your opposing beliefs (which would obviously be a challenge to mine). So far, I’ve not seen any.

Our position is simple; all things have natural explanations - so we have no reason to go to the supernatural. Gods, being of the supernatural, and having no reason to be invoked to explain anything, are discarded. We do the same to all the various gods equally. Until there is some evidence (which you have yet to provide) or reason (your own having yet to be explained) to believe a god, God, or gods exist, we take the NULL hypothesis. We simply assume it does not exist until we have a credible reason to think otherwise. If you can provide us with a credible reason to believe, we will be happy to examine it.

I think I answered the couple of inquiries regarding creation scientists who laid the foundations of much of the science we enjoy today with my last post by listing the creation scientists.

No, no you didn't, but I can see why you think you did. I need to stress something I addressed to Emergence at the beginning of this post. "Creation Science" refers to a specific movement outside the scientific community that endorses specific claims while disregarding others. The group has only existed since the 1960s, well after people like Francis Bacon or Sir Isaac Newton lived. They were scientists, and they were religious, but they were not "Creation Scientists". Some of the people you listed, in fact, would be at odds with the current "Creation Scientists", so it does not help your case to conflate them.

If these things had been taught in school, perhaps you would have already known them.

I did, in fact, recognize many of the names - most of them for being not scientists, but philosophers and mathematicians. Not that there was a particularly big difference between them during the period in which they lived, but it did let certain less-than-scientific ideas into the science of that age. Also, as I mentioned earlier, their actual beliefs did not affect the results they have provided us with. There are many ancient Chinese and Islamic scholars who had very different belief sets, yet were enormously successful - discovering a number of similar ideas decades or even centuries before.

For example, Carolus Linnaeus laid the foundations for modern taxonomy. Why? Because he was attempting to determine the original KINDS of life that God had created.

And Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse because he no longer had the rights to his first cartoon character - doesn't really matter why he did it, but he did it - and it brought a major iconic character to children everywhere! Similarly, it does not matter why Linnaeus made his classifications; what matters is that he lay one of the key foundations for understanding evolutionary relationships between the species.

It is preposterous to claim that creation science is attempting to “invalidate” or “attack” the science we enjoy today. This is the very point of my post. Operational science is operational science. It is done by people who believe in evolution and those who believe in creation.

And it is also the point of mine; because these were not "Creation Scientists", and because "Creation Science" does attack the science we use today. These people who happened to be both scientists and religious contributed many things in their fields. The stuff we use today does not rely on what the individuals believed, but what results they got.

It is the philosophical or metaphysical INTEPRETATION of the evidence where the disagreement lies, NOT in the science itself.

What we need isn't the philosophical or metaphysical interpretation, but the scientific one. How do you prove a philosophical interpretation? How do you prove a metaphysical one? A scientific interpretation can be proven by following the logic to make a prediction based on the evidence's interpretation and seeing if it holds up - but what do you do for the other two?

There is nothing in biology that couldn’t be done while accepting creation theory and rejecting evolution. In fact, evolution has been detrimental to science. For example, we may have had many medical breakthroughs that have been overlooked because evolutionists considered organs to be “vestigial” or DNA to be “junk” for which we have now found play critical functions.

Had evolution been rejected; much of the modern medical science we use today would be confused at best. I already described how evolution has forced us to keep developing our medicine to keep up with the evolving bacteria and viruses. Vestigial organs? We don't need an appendix to survive. Have you ever seen those "sideways eyelids" that some animals have? The Nictitating membraneWiki? Humans have one as well - but it doesn't do anything except get irritated on occasion. We have unusable muscles in our ears (well, some people can use them, but what purpose does it serve when our ears are on the side of our heads instead of the top?). Plus a number of muscles in our limbs that don't actually have anything to do with moving the arm/leg... or anything else really.

As for "Junk DNA", yes, a function was found for some of it. There are still "genetic fossils" aka "psuedogenes" aka "Junk DNA" that doesn't do anything but sit there absorbing mutations from generation to generation (essentially, the only function of psuedogenes is to slow down harmful mutations and stabilize the offspring - which relates to evolution).

By the way, I accept your explanation for why people participate in this forum. For me personally, however, I enjoy defending the truth against opposing arguments a little more than celebrating with people who agree with me. It sharpens my understanding by hearing both sides of the argument.

Granted, and I would never presume to speak for everyone (as I said elsewhere "You can't even speak for everyone and say "Cookies are awesome"!"), but it would be good if you didn't jump to conclusions about our reasoning or thought process. You claim you want to understand us better; that is accomplished not by telling us what we think, as you have done a number of times already, but asking.

No offense, but I’ve yet to see an atheist that even knows what scientific creation theory is.

I've yet to meet two creationists who define it the same, so I'm not surprised other atheists may give a definition you don't agree with. The most common form that I've seen is a retelling of genesis with attempts to support it using a form of the scientific method. Personally, I have not seen someone succeed in using the scientific method to these ends without committing a whole host of logical fallacies, so you should be able to understand my reservation on the subject. However, I would welcome you to give a definition of "Scientific Creation theory" as you understand it so we can at least be sure we're on the same page.

Yet, they’ll [claim] creationists do not know what evolution is even though we’ve all been indoctrinated with it in school. To some degree I don’t blame them. If it wasn’t for the bigotry of atheists who do not allow alternative scientific theories to be taught in our schools, many more people would understand both sides of the story.

For being indoctrinated in it, they certainly fail to show it when most of their understandings of evolution result in questions like:"If we're descended from monkey, why are there still monkeys?"or "Where are the transitional forms - why don't we have Crocoduck fossils?"

Then there are the people who give descriptions of evolution that are only true in the world of Pokemon. Ugh.

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

I have to say, I'm not particularly impressed by this guy's theology. Or his attempts to claim the mantle of science (excepting the science he disagrees with, of course) without actually giving any basis for claiming it.

Two things he needs to know:

Unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, claims that you have the 'truth' and that others don't are ridiculous.

Science is not something that you can avow or disavow merely by saying that it's "good science" or "bad science". You have to prove it either way, and you have to prove it in such a way that is convincing to others. Pretending that you can get around that requirement because the people you're talking to "won't listen" or any other such reason is usually a very good sign that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I do have a few pet peeves in regards to that and one of the most “annoying” is the logical fallacy that if you do not agree with evolution that you are somehow “unscientific” or anti-science. This is a particularly strange allegation when you realize that creation scientists founded most of the science we enjoy today.

And people who believed that the earth was flat discovered and invented many things that we enjoy today.

And someone who thought that stars were just little dots in the sky(instead of suns or planets) contributed their ignorance to the collection of bullshit that you fall for . . . like an idiot.

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Omen, I cannot answer all of your questions in sufficient detail in one post. However, let me make a stab at a few of them I feel are pertinent to the topic.

If I look out on the driveway at my car and refuse to believe it exists

False analogy, a god is a nebulous supernatural agent claimed by a subjective cultural ideology, it is not as self evident as a car and it is blatantly disingenuous to make such a specious analogy. I would add that equally, I could never 'choose' to believe anything I have no reason to believe one way or the other. I cannot look upon my sub compact death trap of a car and 'choose' to believe its a magical dragon.

That's delusional.

Quote

A worldview is a set of initial presuppositions that is used to interpret everything we perceive and believe.

I carry no presuppositions that predicate a god not existing. I carry no philosophical view points that require a god to not exist.

There is no philosophical position on the nature of existence that we can or do argue for that necessarily precludes a god existing. That is to say, all philosophical arguments about naturalism can be true and a god could exist anyway. In comparison theistic apologetic arguments are rarely directed to an audience of people who do not believe already. They mostly suppose conditions as if a god is necessary, without reasonable explanation, and often in the form of a false dichotomy of theism vs atheism.

In conclusion, my 'atheism' is totally meaningless to me.

Quote

Among other things, the atheist worldview presupposes God does not exist

False. As an atheist I just pointed out that I do not have to nor do I actively do so.

Quote

and that all things have come about only by materialistic means.

False. As an atheist I just pointed out that I do not have to nor do I actively do so. This is also a non-sequitur ( another fallacy ), existence can be the product of materialistic means and a god could exist anyway.

Quote

Since logic (among many other things) is not materialistic, it has no rational explanation in the atheist worldview but it is easily explained in a Christian worldview since we have been made in God’s likeness.

False. This is a non-sequitur, logic is not made existent, non-existent, meaningful, meaningless, or other special pleaded qualifier by a god existing or not. Neither is morality.

Quote

The age of the earth has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. The age of the earth was purposely set to billions of years in order to support evolution.

False. No evolutionary mechanism requires an arbitrary date setting.

Quote

If the earth is 6000 years old (or even “just” millions of years old), then evolution becomes untenable.

False. Non-sequitur, certain conditionals would be false, but the active mechanisms behind evolution would continue to function unless that'god' of that mythology specifically removed selective variation from occurring.

Again, totally irrelevant to evolution.

Quote

that the GOP was “anti-science” simply for questioning evolution.

Denying evolution, questioning would involve a serious scientific inquiry. Creationism does not present a credible inquiry into issues with evolutionary science and literally excommunicates itself from all discussion by willfully attacking not evolution, but basic science itself. Most creationist arguments have little to nothing to do with evolution and are instead generalized statements that question the credibility of science as a method of knowing.

Quote

It appears to be a matter of opinion to me.

The scientific method is not a matter of opinion, if it were, then the method would be invalid.

Quote

My claims are supported by evidence and reason already.

Inconsequential until you present them.

Quote

ink it is the proper etiquette, why are you and this forum engaged in it?

You make this accusation without warrant or citation, do you think its fair, reasonable, honest, and respectable to do so?

Quote

Lastly, while there are many facts evolutionists ignore,

As exampled by?

You did not explain what you define as 'evolution', many of your statements treat 'evolution' in a manner that no educational textbook, peer review journal, or scientific publication would recognize as comparable in meaning, context, and/or function.

I'm responding to you late, but considering that you've already made several posts that reveal your gross negligence and irresponsibility, I can no longer treat you 'seriously'. You are either a parody or too stupid and/or mentally ill to consume my interest in you.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 12:52:06 AM by Omen »

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

As promised, I have ignored the presumptuous, impatient, arrogant, hateful, lying, vulgar, insulting, incendiary, offensive, sarcastic and uneducated comments since my last post as well as unsupported assertions, attempts at mindreading and the like. In addition, at least at this time, I’m going along with the unreasonable condition that only I am required to provide any evidence for my assertions while the atheists on this forum apparently believe they are above that requirement. My requests for evidence to support your assertions have been flatly refused and are non-existent in any of the replies in favor of disingenuous insults and accusations.

I do want to recognize a few for their relatively polite comments which include Astreja (I’d like to learn more about your brother’s research into creation theory), Emily (thank you for your polite inquiry regarding the connection between evolution and atheism), Emergence, and mrbiscoop. There may be others I have missed. There are many sincere questions that have been raised but not answered, but I am only one person and it will take time. In addition, Belial’s long post deserves a response since I believe it displays a lot of misunderstanding of the issues that demand clarification.

Since I have provided a significant amount more than 10 dating methods below which “show the world to be a few thousand years old”, I will be waiting for Raymond to “straight up convert to Christianity RIGHT NOW”. Let’s see if he is honorable to his word, or simply a “straight up” liar.

So here is partial list of evidence which indicates that the earth is young in no particular order. I’ve provided only brief commentary. If anyone would like to have a civil conversation about any one of these, I would be glad to participate. Otherwise, I’ve met my obligation and certainly learned what I needed to regarding typical atheist behavior. I will not respond to any belligerent posts which is my right and necessary due to time constraints. If I feel you are being sincere, I may choose to respond further.

Except for (1) and (13), the following evidence is paraphrase or quoted from the book “Earth’s Catastrophic Past – Geology, Creation & the Flood”, Vol II, pp 867-906 by Andrew A. Snelling. The majority of the empirical data he references (ie rates, amounts, dates…) are from secular sources. There are so many of these that due to time constraints I have not included them, but if you’d like, I can add them for any particular quantities in question. There is also a link at the end for further information.

1) Accurate eyewitness accounts – This is perhaps the most obvious evidence of all. Unlike evolution which has its origin in the fallible imaginations of the ancient Greeks, creation scientists have actual eye-witness accounts from which they base their theories. These accounts indicate that the earth is approximately 6-7000 years old. These accounts have been shown to be accurate and no information reported by them has ever been shown to be false. The accuracy of these accounts has been substantiated by an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in every field of science, archeological/historical evidence, the accuracy of its predictions, logical and spiritual evidence. Since evolutionists ASSUME there is no Biblical God, they simply ignore these eye-witness accounts.

2) Supernovas – According to astronomical observations, a supernova occurs, on average, every 25 years in our galaxy. A Supernova first explodes (stage 1), then expands rapidly for about 120,000 years (stage 2) and then supposedly slowly expands after that for at least a million years. If the galaxy is 6-7000 years old, then no supernova remnants would have had time to reach large dimensions and all should be clearly visible. This is indeed what we observe. In addition, it is possible to calculate the number of supernova remnants in stage 2 that we should observe if the galaxy is 6-7000 years old or billions of years old. These calculations indicate that if the galaxy is billions of years old, then there should be at least 2,256 supernova remnants visible. If the galaxy is 6-7000 years old, then we should observe about 268 remnants. In fact, we observe only 200 such supernova remnants, a number totally consistent with a 6-7000 year old galaxy and therefore an earth of the same age. In astronomical circles, this is call the “the mystery of the missing remnants” and only conjectural solutions have been offered by astronomers. Therefore, the current empirical evidence indicates a young earth.

3) Disintegration of Comets – According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system (billions of years). However, since they typically have ages of less than 10,000 years based on the observed rate of disintegration, all comets should have disappeared by now, and certainly no longer than a million years. This is contradictory to a billion year old earth but completely consistent with a young earth of 6-7000 years old. An ad-hoc device used to explain away this discrepancy is the “Oort Cloud” said to be a source of comets. However, it has never been observed and there is not a shred of evidence that it exists. In more recent years, the Kuiper Belt has been postulated to fulfill this role, however, no comets have ever been observed in this belt either. Again, the evidence is consistent with a young earth corresponding to the eye-witness accounts.

4) The earth’s magnetic field – Measurements indicate that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying at a rate of about 5% per century. Therefore the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old or the starting strength of the magnetic field would have been sufficient to melt the earth. This remains an unsolved problem for old earth geologists. The closest attempt at a solution is what they call the “geo-dynamo” model, but this is a computer simulation that has many discrepancies and has yet to deliver a satisfactory solution. It should be noted that both the evolutionist and creationist’s models account for field reversals and that it is the total field strength which is decaying irrespective of these reversals. A test was proposed for the creationist magnetic field model which predicted that the thin layer on top of cooling lava would record the magnetic field in one direction while the magnetic field would be reversed in lava underneath which had cooled later. In fact, three years after this prediction was put in print, this exact data was found demonstrating the impossibility of the billions-of-years geo-dynamo model. In regards to the magnetic field of the earth, the young-earth creationist model has been emphatically confirmed.

5) Salt in the Sea – Evolutionists believe the oceans are at least 3 billion years old. The ocean today contains 10.8 grams of sodium in every kilogram of seawater. It is then possible to estimate the maximum age of the ocean by analyzing data from conventional geological sources of the input and output rates of sodium assuming no initial sodium was present (this is an assumption in favor of an old earth). Every year 457 million tons of sodium enters the oceans from rivers, water flowing directly through the ground, ocean floor sediments, hydrothermal vents and volcanic dust. Assuming this was less in the past using estimates most favorable to evolutionists, this would still come to 356 million tons. However, only 122 million tons leave the ocean each year through salt spray, into the ocean floor, ion-exchange through clay, and crystal absorption. Again, using estimates most generous to evolutionists in the past, this would come to 206 million tons/yr. These figures can be used to calculate the maximum age of the oceans to be 42-62 million years which is far younger than what evolutionists tell us they are (3 Billon). Of course, the true age using realistic assumptions calculates the age of the oceans to be only thousands of years consistent with eye-witness accounts.

6) Erosion of Continents – The earth’s land surfaces are constantly being eroded by water at an average reduction of 2.4 inches per thousand years. At this rate, the North American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in 10 million years which is a far cry from the 3.5 billion years evolutionist say the land surfaces have been available to erosion. This rate is much higher for mountains and exceeds the rate at which they are being uplifted. Even if this wasn’t the case, all of the fossil bearing sediments found on mountaintops would have long been eroded away in only a few million years. How can they still be there today? It should be understood that while this method puts the maximum age of the earth at millions of years, this is still consistent with the Biblical timeframe but completely contradictory to evolutionary ages of the earth.

7) Sea floor sediments – As documented in at least a dozen studies, the average rate of sediment delivery to the oceans from the land is 24 billion metric tons per year. There is only one known mechanism by which these sediments are removed and that is through subduction of the ocean floor at trenches which amounts to 1 billion tons per year. At this net rate of sediment accumulation, the current depth of sediment in the oceans (400 meters thick) would have accumulated in only 12 million years. This is completely at odds with the 3 billion year age of the oceans claimed by evolutionists. Yet it is completely consistent with a young earth, especially when one considers that most of this sediment was delivered during the world wide catastrophic flood which puts the age of the earth at only thousands of years.

8: Volcanic activity – At present, the world’s volcanoes eject an average of about 4 cubic kilometers of lava and ash per year. Since the earth was hotter in the past, volcanic activity was most certainly higher, so using the current rate is an assumption favorable to evolutionist. The surface of the earth contains 135 million cubic kilometers of sediment of volcanic origin. At the present rates, this volume would have accumulated in less than 34 million years. It should be noted that erosion doesn’t help in this case, since this just moves the sediments around and doesn’t change the volume. Again, this is in contradiction to billions of years and consistent with a young earth. If we take into account much higher volcanic activity in the past described in the catastrophic worldwide flood event, this puts the age of the earth at only thousands of years.

9) Helium in Zircons – Helium is a “noble gas” which means it does not bond with other elements and the small helium atoms easily and rapidly diffuse out between crystal lattices. The hotter the rock, the faster it escapes. Helium is a by-product of uranium-lead radioisotope decay. In a study of deep hot Precambrian granitic rock containing zircon crystals with a radiometric date of 1.5 billion years (according to evolutionists), up to 58% of the helium that would have been generated from uranium decay over 1.5 billion years was still present in the crystals. Based on measured rates of helium diffusion from zircons, the zircon crystals have an average helium diffusion rate of approximately 6000 years which is complete agreement with the Biblical timescale. This evidence is devastating to old earth estimates and so several desperate attempts have been made to discredit it, but so far have failed. Thus all available evidence confirms that the true age of these crystals is 6000 years old, not 1.5 billion.

10) Helium in the atmosphere – The rate of introduction of helium from the earth’s crust into the atmosphere is 13 million atoms per square inch per second. The rate of escape is 0.3 million atoms per square inch per second. Obviously, helium is accumulating in the atmosphere. At this rate, the current volume of helium in the atmosphere would have accumulate in only 1.8 million years which is 2500 times shorter than the presumed age of the earth (2.5B yrs) but consistent with a young earth. In particular, when you take into account initial volumes of helium and that introduced during the flood, the earth’s age comes out to be only thousands of years. Old-earther’s answers to this problem remains ad-hoc workarounds with contradictory empirical evidence such as “somehow” great quantities of helium escaped into the atmosphere.

11) Radiohalos – I cannot do this justice in a short amount of space. There are a myriad of other sites which explain how radio halos demonstrate a young earth. In a nutshell, by products of uranium decay include polonium which has a very short half life (minutes). Polonium forms three rings (halos) in the material in which they are decaying. The existence of these halos (and only the polonium ones) in various materials means that the polonium must have been transported from the decaying uranium by water or lava (depending on the material in which they are found). In some coalified logs, one ring will be elliptical (squashed), while the other two are round. This means that these logs were buried, then squashed by sediments in a matter of months consistent with a young age and the flood instead of the proposed 245 Million years from evolutionists. The same goes for halos found in biotite rocks, indicating ages of only thousands of years old and rapid formation, not billions of years.

12) Radiocarbon – AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry) has revealed measurable amounts of radiocarbon in diamonds well above equipment detection limits which are supposedly billions of years old. Since diamonds are impervious to contamination because of their hardness, this indicates these diamonds are only thousands of years old. Nearly identical levels of radiocarbon are found in petrified wood and coals seems indicating they are only thousands of years old instead of the 200-400 million years supposed by evolutionists.

13) Soft tissue and blood vessels in a wide range of fossils including dinosaur bones indicate that these creatures lived only thousands of years ago, not hundreds of millions.

Other dating methods include as many as 20 radiometric dating methods, numerous lines of archeological evidences consistent with Biblical timescales for the presence of humans and the flood, scarcity of human remains, tree ring dating, rates of genetic defects, human population statistics, mitochondrial Eve, recession of the moon, slowing of the earth’s rotation, age of the sun and many, many others. All of these in total easily reach more than a hundred distinct methods. Yet, they are ignored by evolutionists in favor of radiometric dating which rests solely upon unprovable assumptions of an old age, which amounts to nothing but circular reasoning.

A listing of over a hundred of these methods is provided in the following link: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth. It should be noted that even if evolutionists can come up with some ad-hoc explanation for this contradictory evidence, the actual empirical data can still validly be interpreted in favor of a young earth. Therefore, evidence DOES exist of a young earth regardless if you care to believe it and simply scoffing at this data indicates a presupposed unreasonable bias and not an objective analysis of the empirical evidence.